Mortgage Agency Services Number Five Limited · DRN-5955514

The complaint Mr R is unhappy with how he’s been treated by Mortgage Agency Services Number Five Limited (MAS5) in relation to his mortgage What happened In 2007, Mr R took out an interest only mortgage of around £90,000 with another lender. The mortgage was interest only, over a 13-year term. Shortly after the mortgage began, it was transferred to MAS5. The original mortgage term expired in 2020. Mr R has said he tried to sell the property but wasn’t able to, and he had difficulty meeting all monthly repayments. The property was eventually taken into possession by MAS5 and sold for around £70,000 in August 2023, leaving a shortfall of around £40,000. MAS5 has been pursuing Mr R for the shortfall amount, although this has recently transferred to another lender. Mr R has raised several complaints with MAS5 over time about the mortgage, some of which were referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service. In November 2023, an Investigator issued an assessment on the concerns Mr R had raised about the following: - The level of interest charged by MAS5. - How MAS5 had treated Mr R after the mortgage had ended. - MAS5 pursuing legal action whilst Mr R was trying to sell the property. The Investigator upheld the complaint about the interest rate and told MAS5 to put that right. Both Mr R and MAS5 accepted these findings. In October 2024, an Investigator issued an assessment on concerns Mr R had about the sale price achieved by MAS5, after it had taken the property into its possession. The Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. Mr R also accepted these findings. In October 2024, Mr R complained to MAS5 about the following issues: - The mortgage being mis-sold. - The mortgage being transferred from the original lender to MAS5. - The interest rates charged on the mortgage. - Actions taken by MAS5 after the original mortgage term had ended. - The price achieved by MAS5 when it sold the property. MAS5 responded saying that each of the complaint points had either been brought too late, or had already been considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service and wouldn’t be looked at again. Mr R asked us to consider his concerns, adding that he thought MAS5 should consider writing off the remaining shortfall, bearing in mind the payments he’d already made to the mortgage and his wider circumstances. An Investigator here issued an assessment of the case. In summary, they said the concerns

-- 1 of 3 --

about the original sale of the mortgage, and the transfer of the mortgage to MAS5, had been brought outside of the time limits that apply. The Investigator said the issues raised by Mr R to do with the interest rate, how MAS5 treated him at the end of the term, and the sale price of the property, had previously been considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service, and wouldn’t be re-visited. In terms of the remaining shortfall balance, the Investigator didn’t uphold this complaint point, saying that MAS5 was entitled to pursue the balance under the terms and conditions of the mortgage, and wasn’t acting unfairly in doing this. Mr R provided information about his personal circumstances as context for why he hadn’t raised or referred the ‘out of time’ complaint points earlier. And when the Investigator’s outcome remained unchanged, Mr R asked for the matter to be escalated to an Ombudsman. I issued a separate decision where I set out my findings on the issues I would and wouldn’t be considering. This decision sets out my findings on the merits of the complaint point I can consider – MAS5 pursuing Mr R for the shortfall debt. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’ve reached the same outcome as the Investigator. I do appreciate that Mr R feels strongly that he’s been treated unfairly by MAS5 over the years. The issue I’m considering here is MAS5 pursuing Mr R for the shortfall debt. Under the terms and conditions of the mortgage, MAS5 is entitled to pursue the shortfall debt. And a lender pursuing a shortfall debt in these circumstances, isn’t inherently unfair. Whilst I appreciate and understand that Mr R feels MAS5 should waive the outstanding debt - given what he’s already paid and his wider circumstances – I find there are no grounds upon which I can reasonably say that MAS5 has acted unfairly in pursuing the shortfall balance. Mr R benefitted from the loan when he first took it out. And whilst it’s unfortunate the way things ended, the lender is entitled to recover money owed under the arrangement. I understand that since Mr R raised the complaint, the outstanding balance has been transferred from MAS5 to another lender – and that Mr R has been notified of this. I encourage Mr R to engage with the new lender about agreeing a plan for repaying the outstanding balance – if he hasn’t already done so. Moving forwards, if Mr R has concerns about how he’s been treated in relation to the outstanding debt, he’ll need to raise these with the new lender (bearing in mind my findings here). My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr R’s complaint about MAS5 pursuing him for the shortfall debt.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 30 March 2026. Ben Brewer Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --